Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request the following information regarding the Check-In/Check-Out (CICO) parking payment system in council-owned off-street car parks. For context, council evidence submitted in Traffic Penalty Tribunal case Number CW00110-2511 on December 10, 2025, included transaction logs for Easthampstead Road West Car Park on September 4, 2025, showing three zero-value (£0.00) check-in transactions (at approximately 09:44, 10:50 and 12:12.

Please provide: For September 4, 2025, in Easthampstead Road West Car Park (and, if available, all CICO car parks):

1. Whether Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) were issued for these three zero-value transactions and if PCNs were issued, the contravention code, outcome (paid/cancelled/appealed), and any notes on cause (e.g., failed pre-auth).

2. Since the CICO system's introduction (April 2019) please provide:
a) The total number of zero-value (£0.00) check-in transactions recorded across all CICO-enabled machines/car parks (breakdown by year and, if possible, by car park).
b) Of these zero-value check-ins, how many resulted in PCNs being issued (breakdown by year, car park, and contravention code, e.g., Code 73 "parked without payment").
c) How many such PCNs were subsequently cancelled (at informal/formal stage or TPT appeal), and the primary reasons for cancellation (e.g., machine fault, mitigating circumstances).

3. Please share any definitions, policies, or internal guidance on "zero-value check-in transactions" in the CICO system, including:
a) What causes a zero-value entry (e.g., failed pre-auth initiation, network issues, aborted transactions).
b) How these are visible to Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) via hand-held devices (e.g., shown as "no session" despite logged attempt).
c) Protocols for CEOs observing or logging zero-value check-ins (e.g., grace period extension, fault reporting).

If exact zero-value data is not held, the closest equivalent (e.g., failed/declined/aborted transactions at check-in stage) and associated PCN statistics.
If any information is withheld (e.g., under s.31 law enforcement or s.38 personal data), please explain and provide redacted versions where possible.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request the following information regarding the Check-In/Check-Out (CICO) parking payment system in council-owned off-street car parks. For context, council evidence submitted in Traffic Penalty Tribunal case Number CW00110-2511 on December 10, 2025, included transaction logs for Easthampstead Road West Car Park on September 4, 2025, showing three zero-value (£0.00) check-in transactions (at approximately 09:44, 10:50 and 12:12.)

Please provide: For September 4, 2025, in Easthampstead Road West Car Park (and, if available, all CICO car parks):

1. Whether Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) were issued for these three zero-value transactions and if PCNs were issued, the contravention code, outcome (paid/cancelled/appealed), and any notes on cause (e.g., failed pre-auth).
Only 1 PCN was issued against these 3 aborted transactions. For Contravention code 73 the case has been appealed at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal on the above case details you have provided. This case was lost at appeal and remains outstanding.

2. Since the CICO system's introduction (April 2019) please provide:
a) The total number of zero-value (£0.00) check-in transactions recorded across all CICO-enabled machines/car parks (breakdown by year and, if possible, by car park): Our records show since 2020 up to 2025 we have had 755,065 aborted transaction form all types of payment methods compared to 6,432,696 completed transactions. There is no way of knowing why a transaction fails and could be for any of the following reasons: Damaged card, failed to communicate with the bank, Transaction cancelled by the driver, Insufficient funds for the transaction. Wrong vehicle registration provided.
b) Of these zero-value check-ins, how many resulted in PCNs being issued (breakdown by year, car park, and contravention code, e.g., Code 73 'parked without payment'): We are unable to correlate aborted transactions against a PCN. This would require reviewing every PCN code 73 against aborted transactions, with over 45,000 Penalty Notices issued over this period. This work is estimated at 3,750 hours work which would be chargeable.
c) How many such PCNs were subsequently cancelled (at informal/formal stage or TPT appeal), and the primary reasons for cancellation (e.g., machine fault, mitigating circumstances): As above.

3. Please share any definitions, policies, or internal guidance on 'zero-value check-in transactions' in the CICO system, including:
We do not have any policies or internal guidance on zero value transactions. Customers have the options to pay by coin, card, check in check out or RingGo at all car parks. If a transaction fails, then it is up to the driver to pay by any of the alternative methods of payment or leave the car park.
a) What causes a zero-value entry (e.g., failed pre-auth initiation, network issues, aborted transactions): There is no way of knowing why a transaction fails and could be for any of the following reasons: Damaged card, failed to communicate with the bank, Transaction cancelled by the driver, Insufficient funds for the transaction. Wrong vehicle registration provided.
b) How these are visible to Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) via hand-held devices (e.g., shown as 'no session' despite logged attempt): CEOs can only see if a Vehicle registration has paid for parking or not, or if it has a valid permit covering the specified vehicle.
c) Protocols for CEOs observing or logging zero-value check-ins (e.g., grace period extension, fault reporting): There are no protocols for observing or logging zero-value check-ins - CEOs can only see if a Vehicle registration has paid for parking or not, or if it has a valid permit covering the specified vehicle. CEOs are required to give a 10-minute grace period prior to the issue of a PCN in a car park. From first observed to issue of a PCN.